- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: cipherpunk mail at Netcom.com
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:06 PM 2/4/96 -0800, Norman Hardy wrote: >The list of addressees is made from the "From" fields that include >"netcom.com" in CP mail that appeared on the CP list Tuesday and Wednesday >last week. I have received no CP mail since then. Have you? Now that dam seems to have broken (I have received over 250 messages in the last four hours), perhaps I can ask, "What Happened?". I, along with Norm and Lucky received no Cypherpunks traffic for about a week from Februrary 1 to February 7. During this period, we could not get response from majordomo(a)toad.com. I asked a friend in the east to ping toad.com and request "help" from majordomo(a)toad.com. He did and reported no problems with either test. I have sent a request to Netcom support for help with this problem, but their automatic responder says the have a 2 week backlog of email! :-(. Perhaps I will get some information from them in a few weeks. I have two questions: (1) Did people who are not at netcom.com or ix.netcom.com experience this outage? (2) Did people who ARE at netcom.com or ix.netcom.com receive the normal level of traffic during this period? Please respond by private email and I will summarize for the list. I my more paranoid moments, I wonder if this a practice denial of service attack. In any case, perhaps this post will explain some of the strange posts we have been sending to cypherpunks this last week. My appologies for the noise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: personal web proxy?
by jpb＠miamisci.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Does anyone know whether there's a freely available web proxy available >anywhere? Even a "personal" one somewhere on my ISP's UNIX box would be a >simple way to beat superficial logging/resolution of my static IP. >Something like the Nutscapify or Canadianizer proxies, minus all the >blinking and "hoser, eh?" stuff. The CERN webserver can be configured to run in proxy mode. It can also cache requests so that if multiple people are using it (better from the hide me point of view), response time is actually better for pages that more of them are reading. There are several others, but I've only personally run CERN. Joseph Block <jpb(a)miamisci.org> "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." -- Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A) PGP 2048bit-Fingerprint: F8 A2 A5 15 56 42 9B 16 3F BD 57 0F 8A ED E3 21 No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

1 0

Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>About all the proposed symbols and logos and ribbons.... > >I realize I often come across as a naysayer against collective efforts to >design logos, arm patches, flags, and other such tribal insignias...(:-}). > >Logos and symbols have their place. The "Big Brother Inside" logo is a good >joke. > >But mainly I think that we underestimate the value of _words_. Instead of >some cutesy logo, such as a red rose being run over by the "Valdez," a logo >which many people would not understand and would not be interested in >looking up an explanation for, why not simply include a couple of English >sentances _describing_ why the page has been censored, why adult material >has been removed, etc.? (This is the norm today, and I'm glad of it. I >don't relish looking at a Web page filled with inscrutably clever icons and >logos.) > >Graphical icons are great, and worked well until writing was invented. I agree that words have thier place, however, combined with easily recognizable, uniformly similar graphical symbols, they become even more powerful. That's one of the greatest strengths of the web, is it not? lunaslide On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQBvAzD3EHEAAAEDAMVwZzXozPjX18mCenA5fJsdWZXcrhJCxPR+SoVCmR7d4ZVU mwITzPTHo/GyLvJrWyk5YdhheczyY2VSawaMrCN/nWA7K9lwAylbKyPxqBhRYJ3C 2wi2uD5LY2wypNOQyQARAQABtB5KZWZmIENvbm4gPGx1bmFzbGlkZUBsb29wLmNv bT6JAHUDBRAw+1bqS2NsMqTTkMkBAQkTAwCersFbCyk8O0MbGlNcZDAe24CLEWQ0 0C5EHni33W76UsG1bybcLsuMH6HVwLF7IqZivnzc7wkujYPQvCqn8HEYYTld8V9V Cou4dOvA8kV7rHvAn/LuLx7DRruLFrRoPSk= =OIT9 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:21 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote: > Private individuals are not what I was refering to. I am more >concerned about corporations who hold information about me and release it >to the highest bidder. When it comes to individual versus corporate >rights, I am clearly on the side of the individual. Remember that there's a major difference between "corporations" and "business"; you seem to be mixing them up. A corporation is a legal fiction that treats a cooperative effort by one or more people as if it were a person in itself, and normally involves limiting the liability of the corporation's investors by putting it all on the fictional person. A business is what one or more people do to make money. Most corporations are businesses, though not all. Governments can legitimately tell corporations what to do because that's part of the price of the legal fiction; a government can't abuse a corporation because you can't beat up a legal fiction, though it can say "Poof! You're not a legal fiction any more", and conversely, if the people who own the legal fiction don't like what the government's telling it to do, they can dissolve it. (Governments also enjoy regulating non-corporate businesses, but they're no longer on solid moral ground.) > I have also not suggested some form of prior restraint that would >require government access to computers. I simply suggest that should a >violation occur, that I have the right of civil and criminal law as a >recourse to both compensate me for my loss of privacy as well as deter >future damage. A company knowing that civil and criminal penalties could >result from a violation would take extra care to ensure the security of >my data. How are you going to _know_ that a "violation" occurred, if company A tells company B your address or favorite liquor? Only by having access to the records of both companies. Getting that through the courts, for only the parts of their information relevant to you, is better than blanket permission for the government to rummage through their files, but after the first lawsuit lets investigators in, everything they've got is clam bait anyway. It's still major privacy violation - for the company whose machines are being violated, and for the non-suing individuals whose data is also on those machines. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com / billstewart(a)attmail.com +1-415-442-2215 # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs

2 1

e$: Paint it Black
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- As strange as my politics are ;-), I've never been one for political protests, at least not since I graduated college and grew up. However, it seems that I've done enough protesting for silly causes in my youth to excuse me for doing one small thing about something I still *do* believe in, the freedom to talk about what you want without the threat of someone hauling you off to jail. With that in mind, I'm joining the EFF, VTW, and thousands of other web sites across the world today and making the e$ Home Page black for 48 hours. I'm hoping that others out there will join me in making Black Thursday as memorable as they can for the people who think that censoring the net is even possible, much less conscionable. "The net sees censorship as damage, and routes around it." -- John Gilmore Cheers, Bob Hettinga -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRoPsPgyLN8bw6ZVAQE0rwP+LZu5yNwabfBCyTjjnez5/VooUA5f6zkf gTFKHWDelSZS1RZ8ynoOzYSDJ7KzKQDEvETmeY59VTVODKR0brrDwwwbconFCaCm wEcjuhwPpw3jECMPpFNc0NFAdC4h3uoiG8sBY3Da6RZlEVkxgvj0XDweslbcPC/x 6Kkiy6oUJd4= =F1Vn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

Escrow Key Testimony: Witnesses Wanted
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From Robert Steele: The staff of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy (primary sponsor is Senator Moynihan from New York) is looking for individuals able to provide authoritative testimony for or against the escrow key concept as it applies to the effectiveness of law enforcement. I suppose this is grand-son of Clipper, but it is a serious aspect of their over-all mandate, and probably a good idea to help them. I recommend direct contact to the deptuy staff director, Jacques Rondeau, whose email address is <fastermover(a)ichange.com>.

1 0

PRIVACY: Shared Databases
by James M. Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friend, 02 08 95 Bloomberg newsstory datelined Chicago, headlined AMERITECH, BELL ATLANTIC AGREE TO SHARE CALLER ID DATABASES reports: In December, the Federal Communications Commission mandated that caller ID should be available nationwide and that long- distance companies must carry a caller's name, as well as the number. But... Long-distance companies, which will now be able to compete for customers with the Baby Bells, have dragged their feet, and did- n't carry the names.... Which means: ...it will be up to local phone companies to form alliances.... The latest example: Ameritech Corp. and Bell Atlantic Corp. said they will swap cus- tomer data bases to better carry caller ID calls between their regions. Back in December Ameritech ...signed a similar agreement with U S West.... And generally, ...local phone companies [must] form alliances like the one be- tween Ameritech and Bell Atlantic to offer nationwide caller ID. For OUR eyes only! Cordially, Jim NOTE. The newsstory's www.nando.net online filename: info12_24399.html This critical essay was composed 02 08 96.

1 0

Re: Report available: "Minimal Key Lengths for Symmetric Ciphers"
by Karl A. Siil 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:28 AM 2/8/96 -0500, anonymous(a)freezone.remailer wrote: >I downloaded this so-called "report". It doesn't even mentions PGP. >Gotta wonder why the 007 wannabe "experts" and the Big Business (BSA) >want you to only use 90 bits for your keys and why they've never heard >of PGP... > >Anyone who listens to crypto advice from people who's purpose in life >is to listen to *YOU* gets what they deserve. I'll stay with PGP which >has a 2048 bit key. Ummm, apples and oranges. The report focused on symmetric-key algorithms. Also, the recommendation was for a *minimum* of 90 bits. I'm sure the authors would be ecstatic to see *128-bit* (not 2048) IDEA like PGP (or does PGP encrypt with RSA, too? I thought it only used RSA for signing. I admit it. I don't know). The purpose of the report was not "90 bits is good." It was "40 bits is *really* bad." Karl

1 0

FEE DEADLINE: IMC Resolving Security Complexity Workshop
by Dave Crocker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friday is the dealine for the lower registration fee to the workshop. While the differential is small, the real concern is that we have a reasonable estimate of the number of attendees. If you plan to attend and have not yet sent an indication, please do so. Resolving Email Security Complexity Workshop 21 February 1996 * 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM San Jose (CA) Hilton & Towers * San Carlos Room (next to Convention Center) Pre-registration & payment: $50 * After February 16: $75 (cash, check, wire transfer, money order, or First Virtual) To register for the meeting: Web: <http://www.imc.org/workshop-registration> Email: <mailto:workshop-registration@imc.org> For discussion before and after the meeting: Web: <http://www.imc.org/workshop/> Email: <mailto:resolving-security-request@imc.org>

1 0

Join the NIA
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The NIA.... Yes the National Internet Association....... Patterned after you know who..... I'm not kidding, I think it's time. "Privacy Through Cryptography." "Communicate Globally, Censor Locally." I think an old Doonesbury cartoon that had Duke (representing the NRA) testifying before a Senate subcommittee summed it up nicely..... Senator: "And we and the American people have had enough of you and your fanatic organization!" Duke: " I see Senator, shall I put you down for a million postcards?" Senator: " Don't you threaten me mister!" Politicians only understand one thing. Brian D Williams "I am the NIA." - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAy7eA7wAAAEEAJgUoJWlE/7ntxpdfFKJC0EIx1nPmOrfBkIz3N/qyqPsqY6A WJ9jx1oNow8sMjFPET6kbMw2cScfVOUisekK7xVQWuADUPscRXg8zI3x0ws9z2KV ITL+cO7zODIA1+wZS8v14RJpG4dXF1Q9YsydU8T5bodAcsF5TnsfmVh/uI7xAAUR tChCcmlhbiBEIFdpbGxpYW1zIDx0YWxvbjU3QHdlbGwuc2YuY2EudXM+ =moCK - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRpVE3sfmVh/uI7xAQEJhQP/Y5ze19vV+Mvdsq5Ep6nr/hNrMldjSSnZ 8qfXupCkIANIzivqFOiFG+qxXH4UPBZyzklnn3uOkPGewaoNJ2MDnhXCBhWHR0/y +T2Br/nnkIOsyx6wCFMISeKj9oJxqdTd3uZ1hZw8yAfbZqNB755wRsHEK2VQTwzP rwlOgPDC7q4= =3Iya -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0